War on Syria; Not Quite According to Plan Part 3: A USA Unable To Bomb Syria

With all the different components of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail”, the most lethal is undoubtedly the USA. We should therefore take a deeper look at the military hopes and gambles that the USA took, in desperate attempts, to be able to bomb Syria in order to understand why those several attempts have failed for more than two decades.

In Part 2, we saw how the USA was hoping to be able to bomb Syria in 1991 and later on in 2003 following the first and second wars on Iraq. In this part, we shall see how and why America has to date remained unable to achieve this objective.

We must always remember that the enemies of Syria who collaborated together to wage the war against her were, and continue to be, very diverse in their outlooks and objectives. They were only united by their hatred for Syria and the Assad Legacy that gave Syria independent decision-making and the national pride that comes with it.

The maverick who brought all those elements together was no doubt none but the Saudi Prince Bandar Bin Sultan. After all, he had good relationships with all of the other culprits. As a former long-term Saudi Ambassador in Washington, he had very strong American connections and became a personal friend of the Bush’s. He also had good relationships with the rest of the West and even with Israel. The Islamists were under his payroll, and automatically to him, this meant that they were going to remain under his belt. He bankrolled money to them as well as the anti-Syrian thugs of Lebanon in almost bottomless figures.

Whilst Saudi Arabia and Turkey were from the beginning of the “War On Syria” at odds, each seeking to be the rightful heir of Islamic leadership, and whilst Erdogan grew closer to Qatar which also wanted to rival Saudi Arabia for regional leadership (not so much religious leadership). The rivals Erdogan and Al-Saud put their differences aside and worked together for as long as it was convenient.

Erdogan was more than happy to use Qatari funds rather than his own.

The Islamists did not care who was sponsoring and arming them. They believed in the promise of a God-given victory, and embarked on the “War On Syria” with an “Inshallah” (ie God willing) attitude, hoping and believing that everything will work out fine at the end because God was on their side.

The other NATO nations including the UK, France as well as American allies from as far as Australia, just followed the American rhetoric and all became part of the 83-nation anti-Syrian alliance.

The Lebanese ultra-right wing Christian militia (The Lebanese Forces) had been sitting on the fence waiting to avenge the Syrian presence in Lebanon from 1976 till 2005 and the loss of the 1975-1989 Civil War. Via Saad Hariri, Bandar got the “Lebanese Forces” on his side.

Any military strategist with half a brain would have predicted that such a diverse alliance could not survive the ravages of time. Perhaps the architects of the alliance knew this and hoped for a swift victory; a victory they did not achieve.

If Obama kept one promise, it was about not putting boots on the ground outside the USA even though he had no trouble sending drones and other bombers to different nations. Whether or not this decision was based on financial pragmatism, at least he stuck to it.

Obama was not interested in putting boots on the ground in Syria either, and why should he? After all, his friend and ally Bandar was able to recruit tens of thousands of Jihadists who wanted to fight and die.

In 2011, the Americans were happy to let go of the prospect of physically invading Syria if a proxy war gave them the same result without putting a single American life at risk, and all the while, spending Saudi and Qatari money.

The widely reported sums of money that the US government spent into training fighters and providing some supplies, was just a drop in the ocean compared to what the Saudis and Qataris spent.

No boots on the ground was a policy America wanted to uphold in Syria, but it definitely sought a total and unconditional capitulation of the Syrian Government and the removal of Bashar Al-Assad as President.

The swift victory and toppling of the Assad “regime” did not happen as planned, and a few months into the war, the terrorists demanded NATO air support, and for this matter, America needed to seek a UNSC resolution to permit it to do so.

The long-awaited revenge was nearing. America sought a repeat of the Libyan scenario. The internationally-palatable pretext was to impose a no-fly-zone in Syria, and then to exceed the mandate to target the Syrian Government and President.

This time, not only Russia, but also China vetoed the UNSC resolution twice, on the 5th of October 2011 and then again on the 4th of February 2012. Russia, and China but more so Russia, made it very clear that they will not allow for Syria to be bombed by NATO like Libya was.

Once again, America found itself unable to bomb Syria. America realized that it had to wait and try again with a different approach and justification.

In the beginning of the war, the terrorists infiltrated the areas they eventually controlled. In the early days, they hardly ever took control of any area in battle. It was all done in stealth after months and perhaps years of preparation. Suddenly, the Syrian Government realized that many areas had fallen out of its control.

This was how they initially gained control Homs, Idlib, Aleppo and all other regions without a single bullet fired. The fighting was done in the course of driving them out. The only area in which the terrorists did advance was in the far-east, but that was after the rise of ISIS in 2013. In any event, those areas are virtual deserts with very low population density.

Russia did not only thwart two American attempts for UNSC resolutions to impose a “no-fly-zone”, but later on gave America a much clearer message about the redline nature of Syria. This was an incident that was not at all reported on Western news at the time. It was first published on Al-Manar; the official media voice of Hezbollah.

It must be said that with all the stories, rumours and misinformation that have been spread around throughout the “War On Syria”, Al-Manar has been a benchmark of credibility.

In order of reliability, there are four Arabic media outlets that have been reporting and “leaking” news. Al-Manar had been the most reliable, followed by the Lebanese daily Assafir, then the Lebanese online daily Al-Akhbar, and Al-Mayadin.

Al-Manar has broken many news, and in our role as pro-Syrian activists, Intibah (my wife) and myself have taken upon ourselves the task of translating some key Arabic reports and relevant articles for the English-speaking world.

One of those stories was about the “secret visit” of Bandar to Moscow and his attempts to both bribe and threaten President Putin. Our translation of the story was initially snubbed until it became widely accepted as public knowledge.

Another big story, perhaps the biggest of them all, was a translation of an Al-Manar/Al-Akhbar report that explained the events following the false flag chemical weapons attack that accused the Syrian Army of using chemical weapons in East Ghouta.

As the Islamists began to lose ability to hold ground they took by stealth, especially after the fall of the strategic town of Al-Qusayr in July 2013, the need for American air support became extremely vital and much more so than the time when a UNSC resolution was sought. America knew that any justification was going to be vetoed by Russia.

The justification for intervention therefore had to be very substantial and convincing; a scenario worthy of a false flag, and that false flag was the East Ghouta chemical attack.

Let’s recap those nail-biting days of August 2013. A chemical attack on Syrian civilians was conjured up by Bandar with the help of Mossad. The Syrian Army was accused of the massacre. Photos of dead children were reminiscent of the chemical massacres of Saddam against the Kurds. The Western media news became fixated on the subject, replaying it repeatedly in order to generate a global wave of anti-Assad hostility.

With the anti-Assad media warfare at its peak, Assad was finally elevated in the eyes of the West to the same level of hatred that Saddam “enjoyed” a decade earlier. For the USA, it was THE big opportunity it had been waiting for, and for so long, in order to justify bombing the hell out of Damascus with or without a UNSC mandate. America was finally ready to blast Syria with an unprecedented ferocity that would reflect its hatred, anger and the impatience it exercised in the waiting process.

But again, this was not to happen.

After missing out on being able to bomb Syria in February 1991, in April 2003 (after the invasions of Iraq), and again in October 2011 and February 2012 (after the UNSC Russian/Chinese Vetoes), America was still unable to bomb Syria even after the whole Eastern Ghouta kerfuffle of August 2013.

In fact, in September 2013, America did attack Syria, but this attack ended as soon as it started. When Al-Manar/Al-Akhbar published the news and we translated it into English (1), it was widely discounted. It is still not taken very seriously by everyone, but all evidence on the ground and the changes in the stands of America and its European allies are all indicative that this story holds ground.

America fired two missiles at Syria over the Mediterranean. They were spotted by Russia, and one missile was intercepted and destroyed, and the other was hacked into and diverted into the sea.

Russian diplomacy was quick to report the action of its military to the Americans in an attempt to keep this story hush hush, to prevent further escalation, and to avoid needless embarrassment.

As an outcome, Russia brokered the Syrian chemical weapons disposal deal as a face-saver for America, so that America did not seem like it backed down about bombing Syria.

So once again, America missed out on bombing Syria, and for the fifth time.

With the event over the Mediterranean, America knew that a confrontation with Syria was going to mean a confrontation with Russia.

The crisis in Ukraine that followed was Russia’s punishment (as some put it) over what Russia had done in Syria. But the relentless and determined Putin continued to make it harder for America to intimidate him into submission as time went by.

What is ironic is that even some friends of Syria are unaware of the fact that America has actually been unable to bomb Syria for over two decades. The rhetoric of impending American strikes on Syria never seems to stop.

It must be clearly stated that not unless some serious changes take place, and unless America no longer cares about avoiding a confrontation with Russia, it will remain unable to bomb Syria. Strong as this statement sounds, it is in fact an under-statement when we factor in Hezbollah as will be discussed later.

In the above analysis, we are ignoring two major pertinent factors.

Firstly, we need to remember that ISIS has broken loose and that it has been leading its own destiny for over a year. When America formed the coalition to launch airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, the prime aim was ISIS; not the Syrian government.

When I put this argument forward more than a year ago, and when I emphasized that America is not this time using ISIS as a pretext to hit Syria, the argument was staunchly opposed. More than a year later, we clearly see that America has not used this “opportunity” to attack Syria. However, articles predicting an imminent American attack never stop flowing.

Secondly, there is clear evidence that Syria has given tacit support to strikes against ISIS, and that the USA informs the Syrian government in advance where and when those strikes are going to be made. What President Assad said to RT in his recent interview does not contradict with the above.

Some argue that the raids provide ISIS with support and are used to drop supplies. This argument cannot seriously carry weight. Firstly, you don’t use fighter jets to drop supplies. Secondly, the road of supplies has been open via Turkey and accessible to trucks and there is no need to use air drops. There have been some unconfirmed stories of dropping supplies, but if true, it is possible that those were intended for loyal Kurds and accidentally fell into ISIS hands. Incidents like these, including friendly fire, are not uncommon on the battle ground.

With that said, no one is claiming that America is yet serious about fighting ISIS, and this has been said before and needs to be said again. The only effective way to fight ISIS militarily is to cut off its supply lines first, and then to work in conjunction with the Syrian Army. This is not happening as we know, but what is of pertinence here is that all the speculation about America using the opportunity of striking ISIS to strike Syria is a figment of the imagination of ill-informed analysts, mainly Western. Such concerns and fears are not resonating in the Levant or its media.

The protagonists of this theory are failing to explain the logical role of the coalition. If the fighter jets are not bombing ISIS as they claim, and we know that they are not bombing Damascus or any government institution, so what is it exactly that they are doing then?

If Al-Manar is not reporting it and discussing it, it is not worth considering. This is what I have learned over the last four and a half years.

So just to keep the records straight, it is good to count again how many times has America failed to use any given opportunity in order to bomb Syria. The first was in 1991, then in 2003, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014.

And speaking of Al-Manar, we must stop to remember Hezbollah and add its weight to the above argument and strategic equation.

The Russian role has been extremely significant in avoiding an all-out American attack on Syria. But it has not been the sole factor.

The other perhaps most important factors that have protected Syria from American attacks are Hezbollah and ironically, Israel. The presence of Israel as a southern “neighbour” of both Syria and Lebanon has fortuitously turned, in this instance, into a blessing in disguise by virtue of reprisal-based deterrence.

The attrition guerrilla-style war that Hezbollah waged against Israel from 1982 leading up to the defeat of the latter and its retreat from Lebanon in 2000 has put Hezbollah in the rank of organizations with highly effective guerilla-style warfare, no more.

However, the ensuing 2006 July Israel-Hezbollah war lifted Hezbollah to a whole new echelon. Not only was Hezbollah able to defeat Israeli forces in ground battle, not only it sank a frigate, but its missiles were able to reach deep into Israel, leaving no corner within Israel safe.

The myth of the undefeatable Israeli army was finally and irreversibly broken. This has created a whole new balance of power in which Israel needs to think more than twice before it enters into any new military gamble that directly or indirectly involves Hezbollah.

Nearly a decade later, Hezbollah has a much larger missile arsenal in terms of count and lethality. Hezbollah now has drones, and guided smart bombs, and has proven their effectiveness in the battle of Qalamoun against ISIS. As a matter of fact, Hezbollah drones have been spotted as far as southern Israel. Furthermore, in any upcoming confrontation with Hezbollah, Israel is fearful that underground tunnels will enable Hezbollah fighters to infiltrate into the Galilee.

America knows well that any serious attack on Damascus will automatically mean that Israel will be showered by hundreds and thousands of rockets, not only by Hezbollah, but also by the Syrian Army which has been sitting tight on its even larger arsenal of rockets. No place in Israel will be left safe.

Israeli ground to air anti-missile defences (ie Patriot Missiles and the like) will be rendered useless when confronting an endless barrage of rockets. The so-called “Iron Dome” shield was not even able to shield Israel from the limited number of rockets fired from just Gaza. In an all-out war with both Hezbollah and Syria, the anti-rocket defence systems will utterly fail.

So to complete a previously made statement, we must say that unless some serious changes take place, and unless America no longer cares about avoiding a confrontation with Russia, and unless it stops caring about protecting Israel, it will remain unable to bomb Syria.

One does not need to be very cynical to say that America may be foolish and/or desperate enough to risk a confrontation with Russia, but it will not dare put Israel in harm’s way. That imminent loss that Israel will suffer will be the direct and unequivocal outcome of any American attack on Damascus, and for as long as either Syria or Hezbollah has missiles to fire at Israel, this is not going to change.

For as long as the Israel lobby is very powerful within America, and for as long as it is able to dictate that Israeli life comes before American life, America will not risk Israeli life by bombing Syria. But here’s the ironic opposite side of this relationship. If hypothetically-speaking America one day finally realizes that its support to Israel is very costly and needless and decides to dump the Israel lobby and liberate itself from its web, then why would America still want to bomb Syria if the initial objective of bombing it had always been to give Israel long-term security?

In the meantime, pundits and cynics remain fearful and apprehensive, watching and trying to read in between the lines in order to be able to predict when will America attack Syria. They can see the American motives for a strike, but they do not see the deterrents that stand in the way. In all likelihood, this is fortunately an attack that America cannot and will not embark upon, not now, and not in the foreseeable future.

With the recent escalations in Russia’s role, all cards are on the table, and the possibility of direct Russian military involvement is looking increasingly plausible. It seems that Russia’s patience with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf is wearing thin and that Russia has decided to tip the events in a manner to coerce the Gulfies to accept the status quo.

Any speculations and analysis of Russia’s upcoming role can easily turn obsolete overnight as events are moving very rapidly. In any event, it is highly unlikely that Russia would be risking an escalation with the USA. Russian foreign policy makers do not make the short-sightedness brash decisions like their American counterparts do. The most likely scenario is that the USA will sit back and observe what Russia will be doing. On one hand, America hopes that Russia will help Syria crush ISIS, but they will need some win, albeit a diplomatic one.

America will therefore most likely continue with its rhetoric in regard to its demands for the demise of President Assad. It will continue to make threats and insinuate that the military option will always be open, but in reality, it has become a lame duck.

With the Greenback teetering and propped up by “financial easing” (ie printing money), America’s priorities may soon change and focus on other hot zones and/or domestic matters.

As the Greenback sways, one cannot help but remember the nursery rhyme of the ten green bottles sitting on the wall. And even though Foreign Secretary Kerry continues to reiterate that President Assad must go without being able to suggest or enforce any alternative, then we can perhaps safely say that unless America takes that foolish gamble and decides to confront Russia in Syria, then the biggest of all green bottles has in practical terms fallen off the Syrian wall.

In the next and probably final part of this series, we will take a closer look at the dismantling of the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” and how the green bottles have fallen one by one.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

Ghassan Kadi–Thanks to you and your wife Intibah for your fine work . Your recounting of how the Syrian story has evolved up to this point in time along with the placement of various actors and motivations makes sense. one can only hope that an underlying premise of your account i.e. that the US has given up its intention to attack Russia, proves to be true.

the US will no more give up its intention to attack Russia than water will give up its intention to leak from a bucket.

The US will not be constrained by moral values or common decency. The US will always be on the lookout for / be prepared to create any opportunity to cripple anything that gets in the way of its lust for total domination. This is the entire history of the USA. It will take a profound revolution to change this mindset.

Joshua Landis, director of the Center for Middle East Studies, said the train-and-equip program was divorced from the ground truth in Syria, that the US has no moderate militants with whom it can work, and that the dominant forces there are either with the Assad regime or al-Qaida-affiliated groups.

“The train and equip is a unicorn, it’s mythology, and it’s been preserved because it’s an important talking point for the administration,” Landis said. In Landis’ view, the Obama administration is not committed to destroying the Islamic State, but containing it for the next presidential administration to deal with. “This was a talking point that got off of paper and into reality, which was a mistake,” Landis said.

Yes, many sources have been saying this for many months. If you need more proof of it, you can look at today’s story on MoonofAlabama.org wherein the latest absolute fiasco is detailed. (Latest group of “moderates” trained by US– about 70– entered Syria & promptly turned their weapons in to the other side.)

—-
TWO MORE DEPLOYMENTS
Wall st j (in addition to the airfield s of Latakia that we alr know abt):

Satellite photos taken in mid-September and obtained by IHS Jane’s show Russian forces developing two additional military facilities near Syria’s Mediterranean coast, Rob Munks, editor of IHS Jane’s Intelligence Review, said on Tuesday.
Munks said the previously undisclosed work was taking place at a weapons storage facility and a military base north of Latakia, suggesting Russia is preparing to place troops at both locations.

Munks told Reuters one of the sites was located about 4 miles (7 km) north of Latakia and the second was 2 miles (3 km) west of that. The images showed construction of new buildings and grading of terrain, as well as the presence of new tents typically used by Russian military units.

Netanyahoo(Q)
“…, and thousands of rockets have
been launched against Israel’s people over
these last years… Iran,
with the Syrian army’s help, is trying
to establish a second terrorist front against
us on the Golan Heights..
Our policy is to do everything we can
to stop arms supplies to Hezbollah
and prevent the opening of a second
terrorist front against us on the Golan
Heights..
In this situation, I thought it very important
to come here to clarify our position and do
everything possible to.,.”

Vladimir Putin: (Q)

“…This will be the case, Mr
Prime Minister. You can rest assured..as I understand the situation, these
attacks are being carried out using back-
yard production weapons systems.”

By the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, Tartus was manned by only a handful of Russian military servicemen and civilian contractors, and the single remaining floating dock could only receive the smallest of Russia’s ocean-going vessels.

Russia has been looking to rebuild its presence at Tartus since at least 2010, when the former head of the navy Vladimir Vysotsky unveiled plans to equip the facility to handle ships as big as Russia’s aircraft carrier the Admiral Kuznetsov.

That work was meant to be completed by 2012, and be carried out in two phases — first, establishing a military base, and then expanding the naval facilities. The breakout of the Syrian civil war stifled these plans, and only now that Russia is stepping up support for Assad’s regime have they been dusted off.

So how much did this play into the intensifying of the Syrian War by the evil doers at that time (2010-2011). I imagine that the idea of docking the Admiral Kuznetsov might have made some Klaxons go off in the Pentagon!

This meaningful moment in time, when Europe is flooded with refugees and Vladimir Putin talks to the world in NY and US has to eat it’s own s**t, what does it look like to an astrologer and friend of Russia?

@mundaneomaniac Thanks..I am unfamiliar with the concept of septars although I do understand that similar patterns in time have holographic resonances throughout. This is a bit esoteric for most folks, don’t you think? How about the idea that nations get the leaders they deserve and that each leader carries the archetype energy of the nation? Matching the two charts of Putin and Obama and progressing them might tell a more comprehensible story. As for drawing from the 12th house of the unconscious material that might save us all, well, that takes a master able to act in synch with forces unimaginable to most. And may I add, Putin’s Sun Libra is in his 12th house of secrets, isolation and contemplation. It is a partnership sign and his moon is Gemini, also a partnership type of energy and certain could carry ideas from the subconscious into the conscious (Gemini) realm of ideas. On a personality level it probably did grieve him to have to stop calling the US, UK France and Germany “our geopolitical partners” which up until a few months ago he was wont to do. People who think Putin is a p-ssy need to look at that first house Venus in Scorpio–underneath the suave meow is a tiger you do not want to take by the tail.

“I am unfamiliar with the concept of septars although I do understand that similar patterns in time have holographic resonances throughout. This is a bit esoteric for most folks, don’t you think?”
Thanks for Your comment, quite unusual to me to receive one. You are certainly right: rather “esoteric for most folks”. But that cannot deviate from this concept, as it isn’t only basically about 1300 years old, but an thoroughly deviation from the, in my eyes, mostly superficial ways of angular astrology. My way is not to look for followers but to emerge the concept to a certain maturity.
” How about the idea that nations get the leaders they deserve and that each leader carries the archetype energy of the nation?” Right You are, this idea encompasses my thoughts on a moral level.
“Matching the two charts of Putin and Obama and progressing them might tell a more comprehensible story.” Following the emerging traits of the personal charts of the leaders is certainly a valuable way of analysis and is much more common and sometimes I do it myself. I prefer the idea to leave as much space as possible to other astrologers to plow on, and the way You do it in Your comment is to me that i can underwrite every word, particularly Your dealing with the 12th house.
So much the more my approach appears to me and hopefully to future observers as second leg of analysis in which the non personal aeonic conditions become visible in which our heroes and villains act.
By the way, Your term “holographic resonances” electrifies me, never heard such.

Saker and I have a slightly differing take on this (we communicated via email on the topic).

I think Russia is all in. Saker thinks Russia will share the responsibility and work some accommodations with US. (He knows things in ways I don’t.)

The calculation by Putin to act has been over 4.5 years of warfare. Putin assembled complete concordance with all his government, not just military. This is also coordinated with important partners in SCO and CSTO and regional players Iran, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States. Maybe even touching base with the Saudis to inform them that their investment in ISIS has come a cropper. It will be destroyed. Qatar never got direct notification, but they know now.

Putin, from my observation deck on the Tower of Pontification, from whence I write these comments, is a very methodical, legalistic, patient adversary, but when he acts, it is for keeps. He is a judo Dan, a strategist of supreme competence and leads from the front.

I estimate that the move is tectonic. Russia has placed its reputation and national interest as stakeholder into the heart of the region. Some thought it was solely a relationship backing Iran.
Now, it is clear, Syria is crucial to Mediterranean trade and Russia will secure its business activity in the region. That is the security component of what Russia is doing.

Then there is ISIS. The goal of the military action is to use the Syria Army to kill ISIS, destroy it in place, wipe it out.

Finally, there is Assad. Putin has Assad’s word that a new government will form with some nationalists included in an Assad’s future organization of that government. This is symbolic concession to the opponents, to the US, and a triumph of diplomacy. And Russian diplomacy laid all the groundwork for all the military and strategic moves. Never underestimate the preparation Putin and Lavrov do when good things or “quick” things happen for Russia.

To sum my thoughts on the events of the day, it is just the beginning for Russia in the great global geopolitical takedown of the Hegemon. It begins here in Syria. It will continue in Ukraine and Central Asia, and Caucasus, and Southern Europe, and Far East and SE Asia. Russia will secure all of Eurasia, not by itself, with China, with SCO, with EAEU, with CSTO.

If T Meyssan is correct CSTO is already on the ground. Further, he claims US has already engaged at al-Hasakah in support of a Syrian Army action. I’ve seen reports of the Army action, but not yet of any US air support.

In connection w the UN ministerial meeting which Russia has called for the 30th a concept memo has been issued. It indicates that at least this meeting will have to do w terrorism all over the middle east (at least) including Yemen and Libya. Also clear from the article dealing (not very objectively) w the memo is that Russia explicitly regards terrorism as the act of non-state groups– which may be an effort to disallow R2P.

It’s highly probable that Putin’s speech on the 28th w have the same themes and the reinstating of national sovereignty to a pre-eminent place in international law.

And so my own prediction is that they must seek to persuade the international community to wipe out the terrorists throughout the entire Middle-East. For if a country like Libya remains under their partial control it will surely breed more. Therefore due to the breadth of the action necessary an international coalition will be necessary anyway, apart from President Putin’s desires.

By now perhaps you have heard of the 2d group of “moderates” (about 70) who imm’y gave their weapons, pickups & ammo stores to the “opposition”. After that, I would think the US could use the world approval of doing some good guy stuff– like bombing ISIS. Story’s on MoonofAlabama.org Enough to make even a hegemon feel humble.

– Just a couple of days before the UN General Assembly. All US talking heads are busy composing face-saving speeches – an impossible feat.

– The ‘migration weapon’ played by the Zionists against Europa, weakens NATO and the US-EU bond. The anti-US-anti-EU-elites sentiment has reached new peaks among the people of Europe.

– The US Reich is in a state of near-total chaos, the economic is in the gutter, the financial markets are broke-beyond-broke. The White House has lost (long ago) control of the throat-slashers, i.e. the CIA.

– Russia has already coordinated support for the Syria mission with China, Iran, SCO, CSTO and the BRICS.

– We are witnessing history. For the first time ever someone says enough-is-enogh to the Shadow government that has tormented the USA since the founding of the FED.

Yes, I remember you were ahead of the pack, both in your political and spiritual understandings. We are witnessing a vast shift in human consciousness–from the ‘me’ to the ‘we’, from win/lose to win/win! The Age of Aquarius is finally asserting itself. And you were one of the first I noticed looking at larger perspectives.

Larchmonter, Your “observation deck on the Tower of Pontification” reminds me to my fife miles high aloof heavenly buoy on small vibrating steel girder (saw it in dream).
As like as Saker you are continually making my day.
It is to Pisces the zodiac is attributing the ability and inclination to do the peroration or final contemplation.
“Pontification” has the meaning of building bridges – Putin , the “suave tiger” is certainly a pontificater, as like as Xi with his Win-win-philosophy and such pontificaters find the door to many a foreign character like the one of Assad …

Russia has been Western Imperialism’s main opponent for the better part of three centuries-leaving aside leaders such governments as Kerensky’s and Medvedev’s. And, for the past century, (or since 1917) it has been the sole bulwark of an international community which the West has regarded as ripe to be plucked and devoured.

What we are seeing is the retreat of the Empire, western European in origin but based in the United States nowadays, before the great weight of the population of rest of the world (about 80% of humanity) which has finally organised itself (much as western Europe did when Russia was its bulwark against the Mongols) to resist the Empire founded upon the great jackpot that fell into its lap when the bacteria the ‘conquistadores’ secreted, almost wiped out the native populations of America.

This challenges many of my views (for what they’re worth), but I have to admit I find it a pretty compelling account. As usual, much depends on claims I have no direct way of confirming.

I do have one question which seems pretty obvious: if the knowledge that an attack on Syria will have catastrophic consequences for Israel is supposedly preventing the US from attacking Syria, why did the US fire those two missiles at Syria just a couple years ago? I assume the realization that an attack on Syria would have those devastating consequences for Israel goes back to not long after 2006. Or is it a much more recent development?

Mr. Kadi,
—Thank you for your article.
Thank you for the truth about the 2 missiles; I knew Gordon Duff was lying, but couldn’t imagine what the truth was.

I didn’t realize about the threatened rocket-attack on Israel. But I guess I’m too literal-minded. I still don’t get it:

-If US knows that any serious attack on Syria will result in a rocket-attack on Israel, then why were they insisting on bombing it due to the “chem-attack false flag”? What about the two efforts to set up a no-fly zone (really to bomb Syria)?

-You reason that the protection of Israel is the paramount reason for attacking Syria in the first place. Others have stated that it is in order to secure the Qatari pipeline.

But those who make US foreign policy have a paramount goal: the formation of a global oligarchical corporatocracy. Towards this end they are greatly weakening the nation-state through treaties that siphon off sovereign powers & vest them in supranational organizations like IMF, World Bank, BIS, WTO & other “free trade” treaties. I think the reason they attacked Syria is the same reason that they attacked Iraq, Libya & others: They had NOT given up their monetary & trade sovereignty by joining these organizations. They continued to issue their own currency w/o reference to the IMF/Fed system. They continued to control their own central banks. The NWO requires the destruction or emasculation of the nation-state system. Where it cannot be done through treaty, military means are used. That’s what I think.

Your last paragraph raises a crucial point that was not really discussed in Mr. Kadi’s article.

Is it possible that the AZ’s goal of economic hegemony is so overriding that it would risk the consequences (missile attacks) that Kadi writes about?

Personally, I will think that proof that Russia is totally and irrevocably committed to, and views itself ready for, its showdown with the AZ empire will exist only when it adopts the Glazyev position (or something like it) and completely restructures its national banking system, taking itself, and leading the EAEU, SCO, BRICS and CSTO, out of the orbit of the FED, BIS, WTO, SWIFT and the rest of the poisonous alphabet soup of western economic organizations.

Presumably the time is not ripe to throw down that gauntlet, and more patient, methodical groundwork (akin to the patient groundwork Larchmonter 445 discussed regarding Russia’s current military movements in Syria) needs to be completed before that final piece of the chessboard is unveiled. When that piece is played, the missiles would likely not be too far behind.

On the other hand, if Russia doesn’t take such steps towards total economic sovereignty, it would make me wonder just how far the RF is willing to go, and whether, like the resistance’s naive embrace of Tsipras, we aren’t being played as the fools.

Probably more than 2 missiles were intended, but the takedown of the 2 was a dissuader. Is it likely that the US goal in the entire anti-Assad op was to prevent the Iran-Iraq-Syria-to-Europe pipeline in favor of the Qatari-Syria pipeline? Well, maybe. Bit daunting for the US to see EU getting the lion’s share of its gas from Russia & Iran, since some measure of influence wd go w it.

I just see the overall push for globalization– meaning supranational institutions that usurp monetary, trade & economic planning from sovereign nations– as the No. 1 way to arrive at the NWO. Failing that is No.2, chaos that can’t resist globalists’ plans . We don’t yet know what their No.3 modality for solidifying the NWO is.

But at some point they are bound to play the global economic chaos card, perhaps by taking down the dollar. Many countries just cannot survive any chaos or interruption in trade. They are not food or fuel self-sufficient. The temptation to sign on to an orderly one-world currency system run by the existing institutions would be very great. And extremely difficult to withdraw from later.

If the global economic chaos card is played before the smooth, patient safe advance to the return of economic and trade sovereignty. . . .

Whenever it’s done a whole group of countries should do it together. perhaps in step-by-step fashion.

Btw, Starikov says the reason there was an “iron curtain” against USSR is because Stalin refused to sign up for IMF, etc. — in his free online book.

JiminNH,
Hi again. This is from opednews. I’ve included the whole thing as I think it’ll be of universal interest. Of course you’ll take note of No. 5 of the ultimatum.

4) Syria was under harder sanctions than it is now. Syria has been under increasingly severe western sanctions since 1956, 15 years before Hafez Assad took power.

Bashar al-Assad’s Damascus Spring: Syria in the 2000s
Late Hafez Assad followed a more complex policy regarding foes and foreign agents in his government than Bashar does. Hafez would keep his foes in their posts but under his watchful eyes. When Bashar was selected by the Syrian Parliament to succeed his father in 2000 he removed all of the treasonous foes and foreign agents that Hafez had maintained in office.

Bashar’s first reform was to ease some political restrictions, allowing politicians to move more freely. In June 2000 the Damascus Spring was started. It lasted until Autumn 2001 by which time most of the treasonous opposition’s foreign funding, and relations with the US Department of State and corporate think tanks had been exposed. The corrupt officials and their families were expelled from Syria and settled in foreign countries. They used their massive accumulations of wealth to mount political opposition to Bashar from abroad.

In 2003 the US was occupying Iraq. US Secretary of State Collin Powell visited Bashar and handed him a list of demands including: 1. Cutting all ties with the five main Palestinian factions in Syria, 2. Severing Syria’s relations with Iran in exchange for a promise of better relations with some Arab states. 3. Signing a peace treaty with Israel similar to one Syria had already refused. 4. Removing books from schools with any enmity towards Israel. 5. Allowing western banks and companies unhindered access to Syrian markets and resources along with other neo-liberal reforms.

Bashar refused these demands in the face of the nearly 200,000 coalition troops across the Syrian border in Iraq. Instead Bashar sought to hinder the occupation of Iraq and demanded that the occupying forces withdraw.

Because of the proximity of Damascus to the western boarder with Lebanon Syria has the strategic need to secure this border. None the less in 2000 Bashar started withdrawing Syrian troops from Lebanon where they had battled Israeli forces. The troops were reduced from 35,000 in the year 2000 to 14,000 in early 2004.

In 2005 Lebanese Prime Minster Rafic Hariri was assassinated with the help of members of the Lebanese Future Movement party and likely the help of the US and France. This was a political blow to Assad within Lebanon, and he was also blamed for the assassination using media manipulation and prepared activists.

Tens of thousands of Lebanese took to the streets to condemn the killing of Hariri including members of Syria’s closest allies Hizbullah and Amal. The media claimed that the crowds were against the Syrian Army presence in Lebanon. US and France tried to pressure Assad into reinforcing the Syrian Army in Lebanon to stabilize the country but Bashar withdrew all Syrian troops from Lebanon.

This background gives the context accompanying president Assad’s reform attempts in Syria, where he had to face foreign powers from abroad and their agents from within. The current crisis is not a civil war or rebellion, but a foreign aggression against a sovereign nation.

About the Author
The author was born and lived in Damascus, Syria. He moved to Germany ten years ago and runs a company that organizes tourist groups to Syria. Before the conflict he went to Syria often to stay for days and months. He has been an outspoken defender of the Syrian government and has been targeted by the Free Syrian Army, who destroyed his home in Syria and threatened his life, and so writes under the name Arabi Souri. This article was edited by Seth Rutledge.http://www.opednews.com/articles/2/A-Syrian-s-Perspective-Ba-by-Seth-Rutledge-130401-736.html

There is a most striking pattern which applies not only when comparing Putin/Russia and Tsipras/Greece but, most importantly, also when comparing the very mass base standing behind them.

The crucial point is that, in the case of Greece, the stunt of Tsipras and Syriza was entirely centered on the prevalent, very sweet delusions of the sheeple about “EU without austerity”, duly accompanied by the promotion of — you guessed it — ‘European values’. It was a very blunt case of First World “leftist” populism and chauvinism which the Eurocrats rewarded precisely the way it deserved to be; the justice of it surpassed only by the treatment meted out to the grovelling Ukro-trash (not including the peoples of the south-east).

The rock-solid, enduring mass support which Putin enjoys in Russia is a very different matter altogether. Putin, more than any other individual, personifies Russia’s stunning ascendance from the hellhole that the unbridled, corporate gangsterism of the West had turned it into once Western imperialism (and its traitors within) had first defeated and then literally finished off the USSR. Today, the Russians are confident and, unlike the peoples of Southern Europe, know they and their country make a huge difference for the benefit of the entire world. If in doubt, the West’s lying machine a.k.a. the Corporate Media makes that abundantly clear, albeit inadvertently so.

I like the analysis a lot, except for the conclusion that US will not attack Syria because of the deterrents (risks of confrontation with Russia and Syria plus HZB attack on Israel). I have to say that those deterrents have always been there and yet the US tried very hard to attack Syria (5 or 6 times, including 2 actual missile launches). This begs the contra-analysis – it already HAS tried to attack Syria, many times, so is it not clear that the deterrent does NOT keep it from attacking Syria?

My other question on your analysis is that I am not sure that the reason for US not wanting to attack Syria is because it does not want to threaten the security of Israel. One reason noted by many credible analysts (the main reason?) for the US wanting destroying Syria is to enable the gas pipeline from Qatar to Europe, thus a geopolitical manoeuvre based on the current energy wars. Another reason for the US destruction of Syria would be to remove Russia’s ability to protect it’s soft underbelly against ISIS expansion into central Asia. In this context Syria becomes a ‘Stalingrad’ for Russia in that if it falls then Russia (as a large united resourceful country) may be dismembered, which many say is the ultimate US geopolitical goal.

I know that we are very dense w news just now, but for those of you who are following MH17 (I am not), we seem at last to have come to definitive proof that the Buk story is false– from the official investigation. I have only scanned the story & will not do more. I may be WRONG, but here’s my understanding:

1. Info was released by official investiga making Buk impossible. Then it was classified too late– info already out:
“CT scans, X-rays, autopsy sections, and spectroscopic testing of metals, which have now been conducted in The Netherlands and verified in Australia, make the Buk story impossible. This evidence cannot go further to identify the sources of the fatal damage to aircraft and passengers.”

“To do that requires a return to the evidence of the Putin-Obama tapes, and the reinterpretation of what was said then in light of what is known now.”

2. Putin told Obama the cause of the crash (air-to-air) during the initial phone call, after speaking to the air traffic controllers.

3. No administration figure blamed Rus/Ukraine/Buk til after Proshenko made the story up coincident w the phoney social media stuff. At that time US admin, already knowing the cause from Putin, collaborated in covering this premeditated war crime by Ukraine.

“The Buk story has now failed because of the Dutch and Australian evidence. All that is required to corroborate this is the tape recording of what Putin and Obama said to each other. It doesn’t matter whether the tape comes from the Kremlin, or from the White House. So long as they are the same.”

I guess I have to read this again to understand because at this point it doesn’t make sense to me if U.S.still isn’t interested in toppling Assad, then what’s their purpose of supporting ISIS? Of course they have been wanting ISIS to survive to overtake Syria or the U.S. attacks would have been more effective.

Saker, thanks. Ghassan Kadi, splendid report, thank you. I remember how much I enjoyed reading the story about Bandar threatening Putin. I’m delighted now to find it was you and/or Intibah translating it.

In a future writing, could you speak to the ambivalence of US actions with regard to bombing Syria in terms of the retaliation against Israel? Is the tension between the US craving for revenge and the Israeli fear of retaliation what has put the recent distance between the White House and Israel?

I greatly appreciate the view you give us from the Levant. This story lightens the heart. I feel the same way that several commenters here feel – from many indications and sources – that US is no longer in control, and is painted into its own corner. So it was never boots, but just the big green bottle on the ground :)

thanks Saker for posting this very interesting article…I suppose some Americans will be unhappy about the term ‘greenback’ as this was a alternative money that Abe Lincoln came up with for some reason in the Civil War. Its a better form of money than the American dollar…I’m not quite sure why.

Ann – the greenback was limited in quantity, and the quantity was known. These are the two key features of perfect money.

Further, the issuance was planned to be withdrawn gradually from circulation in the economy, which I think qualifies it to be called a “sinking fund”.

The best work ever written on sound money in my experience is the book called Pieces of Eight by Edwin Vieira, Jr. He explains many things in great detail, especially why money, in order to be an accurate medium of exchange, must itself be measurable.

Even gold isn’t as accurately defined, in terms of quantity, as the greenback was.

Inspiring article. It all makes sense even down to the missiles Russia eradicated.
One thing remains: why would the USA wish to attack ISIS?
To claim they do is such a glaring nonsense it makes me think I cannot understand the English written above.
Elsewhere we are told of US trained troops handing their (presumably sophisticated) US weaponry to Isis and al Nusra on the day of arrival in Syria. Great way to deliver when to do so is proof of complicity.

It is also interesting to note that on RT news today apparently there is a letter circulating in Saudi Arabia amongest the ruling elite wanting the removal of the current regime…….so itmay be worth watching what’s going on their too and who may replace or not replace the current King.

No, Russia will not defeat ISIS & al Nusra (al Mossad). Russia will provide all the SIGINT and the modernized hardware that the Syrian Army needs to defeat the takfiris. Let’s take a look at the Russian hardware being provided. S-300 air defenses plus fast high altitude aircraft (Mig31) will make any no-fly zone imposition risky. This upcoming no-fly zone was telegraphed with the move to Incirlik, Turkey of 30 USAF F-15/F-16. 12 S-25 delivered by Russia will be for ground attack of ISIL & al Mossad (al Nusra). 12 S-24 delivered by Russia can fly below radar and threaten supply lines running from foreign state sponsors such as Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel. The CSTO and SCO will provide HUMINT following interrogation of Chechen and Uyghur taken captive. Iran will continue to provide tactics, manpower and intelligence and Hezbollah will continue to do the same but provide a more defensive role. The Kurds, Iraqis and Egyptians seem to be on-board as they face the same enemies. The grand strategy seems to provide a security umbrella over the Syrian sky, to dry up the takfiris supply lines and to let the Syrian Army do the extermination of the takfiri terrorists.
This map below is how CSTO & SCO see the security situation in Syria & Iraq.http://xn--80aaf2btl8d.xn--p1ai/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/распространение-ислама.jpg

UPDATE on aircraft deployed by Russia. It is 4 multipurpose Su-30 not MIG31. The other aircraft deployed are: 12 x Su24 + 12 x Su25. China is set to deploy up to 24 carrier based J-15 from its Liaoning aircraft carrier en route to Tartous according to debka.

The most apparent cause for the war is the Qatari natural gas pipeline project running through Syria and reaching Turkey on its way to the Balkans. This is why NATO wants Assad gone because he is a hindrance and will only support an Iranian gas pipeline instead. Furthermore, Israel’s off shore natural gas reservoir is to be linked up with those of the coast of Lebanon, Syria and Cyprus. This explains the Israel past occupation, its past war in Lebanon and its present involvement in Syria. Israel has given rights to Murdoch and Rothschilds company Genie to explore Oil & Gas in both the Israeli controlled and Syrian Golan Heights. Israeli support of Jabat-al-Nusra anti-Assad rebels in the Golan Heigths in Syria is evident. Rothschild & Murdoch’s interests “Genie Oil & Gas” (New Jersey) granted by Israel in the Oil finds in the Golan Heights are in dire risks threaten by Russian military assets. Dick Cheney is all chips inhttp://genieoilgas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PR-111510-Rothschild-Invests-in-Genie.pdfhttp://www.debka.com/dynmedia/photos/2015/09/13/src/LeviathanBIG.jpg
Excerpt from debka.com
“More than a fortnight ago, Russian President Vladimir put a proposition to Israel for Moscow to undertake responsibility for guarding Israel’s Mediterranean gas fields, along with the offer of a Russian investment of $7-10 billion for developing Leviathan, the largest well, and building a pipeline to Turkey for exporting the gas to Europe, DEBKAfile reports. The offer was made to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in confidential phone conversations and through quiet envoys.
At the time, Putin did not share with Netanyahu his plans for an imminent buildup of marines, air force units, warships and missiles in Syria, although the plan had been worked out in detail with Tehran in late July. The Russian ruler put it this way: Leviathan abuts on the fringes of Lebanon’s economic water zone and is therefore vulnerable to potential sabotage by Iran, Syria or Hizballah, whether by commando or rocket attack.
A multibillion Russian investment in the field would make it a Russian project which neither Syria nor Hizballah would dare attack, even though it belongs to Israel.
But now the situation has assumed a different face. Russian forces are streaming to Latakia, and Moscow has declared the area from Tartous, Syria up to Cyprus closed to shipping and air traffic from Sept. 15 to Oct. 7 in view of a “military exercise including test firings of guided missiles” from Russian warships.
When he offered a shield for Israeli gas fields in late August, The Russian ruler knew that implementation would rest with Russian military forces on the spot, rather than Iranian and Syrian reluctance to harm Russian interests.”

Rev_9:14 Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates.
Rev_16:12 And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared.

The prophecy says that the Great River Euphrates is going to dry up to prepare the way for the kings of the east. Well this is being caused by dams built by Turkey. The irrigated land in Syria is shrinking fast with Euphrates flow down to 20% of what it was and Turkey plans more dams. This is fueling famine and poverty and it is a great way for recruiting young people to fight in stupid wars.

It is now clear that this is what draws the Kings of the Orient to war. Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) led by Russia has an objective of stamping out terrorism. There are Chechen (Caucasus) and Uyghur (Chinese) fighters in Syria. They already see Uyghur activity returning from Turkey and Syria to do terrorism in China and in Thailand, and other nations. Airplane terror has been intercepted several times, attempted by the Uyghurs trained in Al Qaida and ISIS regions. All forms of terror, extremism and separatism are the issues of CSTO charter. Likewise, the Shangai Cooperation Organization (SCO) also has collectives issues with Islamic Terrorism and have offered troops to Syria.

Many await the destruction of Damascus in fulfillment of prophecy but the French bombarded Damascus, which they had regime-changed in 1920, in 1925, 1926, and 1945, and they pacified the city with martial law during most of the “peaceful” intervals.

Hi Sun Tzu, its beautiful to read those sacred poetic scriptures, but I always thought that the drying up of the river was so that the great Indian religion (the Kings of the East) could come into the rest of the world.

It is describing the end of the world. The Kings of the East could also be divine beings from the Sun.

I guess the scriptures can be interpreted in many ways, because what you say is also true, but so sad. I thought the Scriptures point to a long far away hopeful scenario.

Thank you for article. Your very clear words bring a a breath of fresh air and hope in a world of chaos and stifling lack of freedom of the press and of the peoples all over the world. God bless you and your family as well as The Saker.

First video is silent for a while so be patient. As to this happy news is fantastic that Putin, the brilliant statesman has done this, as it shows the West and other parts of the world that Muslims and Christians can be friends and cooperate towards peace, unity and see the humanity in one another.

Wishing many blessings to the Muslims on their new and one of the most beautifully architecturally designed Mosques.

Thanks for all the comments and questions. I was stopped at two main issues raised; the story of the two missiles and Israel’s nukes.

On the first point, the question was in relation to America risking an all-out attack on Israel with the two missiles. No one really can claim to have the answer for this. To begin with, we don’t know if those missiles were meant to be a warning only or intended to be followed by a barrage of them. We also do not know what their target was. If they were aimed at a minor target, the guess would be that America would have been testing the water, as it were, to see what the retaliation would be.

In as far as Israel’s use of its nukes, this brings in a whole new type of war. There are many unconfirmed reports that Israel considered using nukes to attack Iran with (in regard to the nuclear program). In reality, unless Israel was able to nuke all major Iranian cities and nuclear sites and totally disables communication and brings the chain of command to a halt all in one hit, it would not be able to stop the barrage of rockets.

The same would apply for Syria and Hezbollah. If the aim is to protect from rocket attacks, I cannot see how nukes can do the job…This is my view, and I stand to be corrected.

The U.S. and Russia are ending an 18-month freeze in military-to-military relations and initiating talks about how to pursue “deconfliction” of the American and Russian forces involved in the Syrian conflict. Russian and US defense chiefs began talks on September 18 over Syria to avoid dangerous misunderstandings on the battlefield.

“I m a nobody – just a Christian American
conservative, a rugby mom married to a
handyman who has fallen in love with Syria and
has spent hundreds of hours over the past
several months trying to understand what’s
going on over there. After never in my life
supporting a “dictator”, I now consider Bashar al
Assad one of my heros and I pray for him and
for Syria everyday. I believe the US is
determined to hand over the ME on a platter to
the Muslim Brotherhood both through liberal
naivete about their true goals and methods and
through conservative desire to justify defense
spending. I personally don’t need it justified – I
agree with a strong defense – I just don’t want
to continue to shred countries to get the
terrorist rats in the walls and to further the
caliphate dreams of salafis.”

It seems naive to suggest ISIS has “broken loose.” More realistically I think ISIS is now being used not as an excuse for the US to attack Assad directly, but as a means to attack Assad indirectly.

Given what the article says about the US knowing a direct attack on Syria would provoke war with Russia, then using ISIS and the other incoherent collection of radicals as a proxy army would seem to be the only way for the hawks to go.

It certainly is not tenable that the US has been trying and failing to defeat a poorly trained, under-equipped collection of jihadists for more than a year. Much more in line with the evidence is the idea ISIS are puppets, or even simply a name to be slapped on any actions done by the US’s collection of covert operatives and paid mercs.

First of all thank you for you relentless work in making news of these events known. You are deeply appreciated. May I make one correction? In Part 2 you mention that in the 1982 invasion the Israeli army could have take all of Lebanon but stopped at Beirut. The Syrian army actually stopped the Israeli invasion in the hills overlooking Beirut at two points. If the Israeli army had continued along the coast they would have been massively exposed to being cut off by a Syrian counter-strike which was being readied. If they had contrinued they would have lost the support of the Christian and Sunni militias that both sat out the battle and watched as the Palestinians were wiped out. To continue would have untied Lebanese militias against them, exposed a vulnerable flank to the Syrians and led them into confrontation with the Frewnch (who defend the Lebanese Maronites). So no, Israel could not have take all of Lebanon. They were actually defeated by Syria in their attempt to even take S. Lebanon. Otherwise though, I deeply appreciate the depth and completeness of your analysis.

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.